Analyzing
Today's NIV Below the Surface

Anyone
can see that the TNIV (Today's New International Version, an update
of the New International Version) makes changes to the NIV in the area
of gender. Some of the changes are legitimate, and are in line with the Colorado
Springs Guidelines on Gender Language (footnote1).
But many of these changes (see here
for a list of inaccuracies) look suspiciously like movement in the direction
of "political correctness." The "Kept the Faith" website
contains a list
of some problem verses, and elsewhere there are several kinds of critical
analysis of TNIV revisions.

In
spite of documented problems with TNIV, some people defend the problematic
changes (footnote2). We must dig deeper if we are to make up our minds when
we hear these defenses.

A
full discussion of the issues can be found in the book by Vern S. Poythress
and Wayne A. Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity
of God's Words (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000) (soon to be online
here at the KepttheFaith website). This book came out in the year 2000, before
the publication of the TNIV; but the principal issues have not changed since
then. In fact, in its treatment of gender the TNIV differs little from the
British Version New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
(NIVI 1996). The NIVI was produced by substantially the same translation committee
as was responsible for the TNIV (the Committee on Biblical Translation associated
with the International Bible Society). The Poythress-Grudem observations about
the NIVI apply with little alteration to the TNIV.

We
will here do something briefer. We look at three passages in detail, to show
that meaning changes have indeed taken place in the TNIV, and that defenders
either do not know what they are talking about, or are presenting evidence
in a one-sided fashion.

Luke
17:3

NIV:
If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents,
forgive him.

TNIV:
If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender;
and if they repent, forgive them.

The
TNIV exhibits a considerable number of questionable changes, but we will focus
on only one of them, namely the change from "brother" in the NIV to "brother
or sister" in the TNIV.

Facts
about the key word adelphos ("brother")

The
underlying Greek text has the word adelphos, masculine singular. We
can summarize the basic facts about Greek as follows.

The
Greek word adelphos, when used in the singular in the context of an
ordinary family, means "brother." ("James, the brother [adelphos](footnote3) of John" Acts 12:2 NIV.) It does not mean "sibling"
(with no male marking), and certainly not "sister."

Greek
also has a related feminine form adelphe, which means "sister."
("Mary and her sister [adelphe] Martha," John 11:1 NIV.)

When
talking about a group of siblings, the feminine plural of adelphe would
be used for a group of female siblings ("sisters"). For example, John 12:3,
referring to Mary and Martha, says, "So the sisters [adelphe] sent
word to Jesus ...," (NIV). The masculine plural of adelphos would be
used for a group of male siblings ("brothers"). ("He saw two brothers [adelphos],
Simon called Peter and his brother [adelphos] Andrew," Matt. 4:18 NIV.)
For a mixed group of brothers and sisters, there are two alternatives. One
could use both masculine and feminine forms in order unambiguously
to include both. ("If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers [adelphos] and sisters
[adelphe]--...," Luke 14:26 NIV.) Or one could use the masculine plural
form alone, and let the context indicate that sisters are included.
("Therefore, I urge you, brothers [adelphos], in view of God's mercy,
to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, ...," Rom. 12:1 NIV. For examples
where literal brothers and sisters are in view, see Poythress and Grudem,
Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, p. 263.)

In
addition to the literal use for ordinary brothers, the word adelphos
has an extended use in which it refers to close associates. The most common
case in the New Testament is the well-known use in which one refers to fellow
Christians as "brothers." (Rom. 12:1, and many other passages.) But it also
occurs in referring to fellow countrymen. For example, in Acts 3:17 Peter
addresses fellow Jews: "Now, brothers [adelphos], I know that you acted
in ignorance" (NIV). And it can refer to an associate more generally, anyone
who is a "neighbor." ("But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother
[adelphos] will be subject to judgment," Matt. 5:22 NIV.)

Since
Luke 17:3 uses the masculine singular form of adelphos, the translation
"brother" is most reasonable. If a Greek speaker wants to say "brother or
sister," he can use the masculine and feminine singular forms side by side.
("Suppose a brother [adelphos] or sister [adelphe] is without
clothes and daily food," James 2:15 NIV.) When the masculine singular alone
occurs, as in Luke 17:3, it basically means "brother" (possibly in the extended
sense), not "brother or sister."

Confusion
from defenders

Some
defenders of the TNIV enter at this point, and try to justify what the TNIV
does. But much of the defense introduces confusion rather than light.

For
example, defenders may fail to distinguish between the singular and plural
forms of the word adelphos. The plural, as we have seen, can in some
contexts be used to refer to mixed groups that include both men and women.
But the singular is different. The masculine singular is used to refer unambiguously
to a man.

Now
why should the behavior of Greek be different for the singular and the plural?
The reason is fairly simple. In the plural we are sometimes dealing with mixed
groups, including both men and women. Greek must use some gender (just omitting
the gender is not grammatically possible). So masculine is used. But a single
individual, as opposed to a group, cannot be mixed. The masculine singular
adelphos is unambiguously male, while the feminine singular adelphe
is unambiguously female. (See Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible
Controversy, pp. 268-269.)

Next,
note that Luke 17:3 expresses a general principle, namely that we should rebuke
and forgive those who sin. This general principle applies to both men and
women who sin. Hence, a defender concludes, we need explicitly to make this
inclusion of women plain.

But
the conclusion does not follow. The Bible regularly uses individual cases
to illustrate and express general principles. The individual cases can be
either male or female, and need not be gender-neutral. For example, the wise
man who builds his house on the rock in Matthew 7:24 illustrates a principle
applying to both men and women who hear Jesus' words. God "settles the barren
woman in her home" (Ps. 113:9 NIV), illustrating the care that he has for
both men and women who find themselves childless. Exodus 20:17 says, "You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife," leaving us to infer that it is also
wrong for a wife to covet someone else's husband.

Luke
17:3-4 sets forth a case with some particulars, not only by starting out with
"If your brother sins," but continuing with "if he sins against you seven
times in a day." The particular case can involve a male example, without undermining
the fact that the general principle includes both men and women.

The
TNIV changes the introductory expression by making it say, "If any
brother or sister...." It is not any longer "your brother" (NIV) but "any
brother or sister." The insertion of "any" pushes things a little more in
the direction of a generality, less in the direction of a particular case
through which one illustrates the generality. This change already somewhat
obscures the way in which Luke 17:3 starts with a singular case. Luke 17:3
mentions a brother as the starting case. This is no way undermines the generality
of the principle.

Defenders
also tend to overlook another subtle meaning difference, the difference between
using a single designation like "your brother" and a double designation like
"any brother or sister." "Any brother or sister" invites us to consider two
different kinds of cases, flipping between them in our minds. These two
are then the basis for arriving at a general principle. In the end, the general
principle is the same. But the way in which one arrives at the general principle
is subtly different. A writer who wants to express a general principle must
bear in mind that both approaches have their strengths. By focusing on one
example, one sets forth the principle more vividly and pointedly. By providing
a list with two or more examples, one emphasizes that the reader should look
out for all kinds of cases differing in various ways from each other. The
meaning effects are different with these two strategies. In Luke 17:3-4, Jesus
has chosen the first strategy (with one starting case), not the second.

Next,
defenders may introduce confusion by claiming that everything is different
with the extended use of the word adelphos ("brother"), as opposed
to the literal use for an ordinary brother. Certainly the two uses can be
distinguished. But it is evident that the extended use is built on the ordinary
use. It is natural to assume that many meanings from the ordinary use carry
over by analogy to the extended use. And indeed this is the case. For example,
in Romans 16:24 the Apostle Paul refers to a Christian man as "our brother
Quartus" (NIV), using the masculine singular adelphos. In Philemon
2 he mentions a Christian woman, "Apphia our sister" (NIV), using the feminine
singular adelphe. A group of Christian men are designated "brothers"
using the masculine plural (adelphos, 2 Cor. 8:23), while a group of
Christian women are designated "sisters" using the feminine plural ("Speak
to my sisters [adelphe] that they love the Lord, and be content with
their husbands in flesh and in spirit"; from outside the New Testament in
Ignatius to Polycarp 5:1, Loeb Library). A mixed group of men and women
Christians can be addressed as "brothers" (adelphos, masculine plural,
Rom. 12:1), but can also be addressed as "brothers [adelphos] and sisters
[adelphe]" ("Let us then have faith, brothers and sisters," with a
masculine plural followed by feminine plural; from outside the New Testament
in 2 Clement 20:2; see also 2 Clement 19:1). The pattern matches what we have
described in the literal use for ordinary brothers and sisters.

Next,
defenders may confuse things by appealing in a slanted way to Greek lexicons.
For the word adelphos the standard New Testament Greek lexicon by Bauer
(BDAG) lists both the literal use "brother" and the extended uses. Under the
extended uses it has descriptions such as "compatriot" and "neighbor." "Aha!"
someone says. "You see that BDAG has 'neighbor.' BDAG proves that adelphos
can be gender-neutral, with no male meaning component."

But
it does no such thing. One must understand what a lexicon is saying, rather
than just leaping to conclusions because of the mere occurrence of the word
"neighbor." In context, BDAG is explaining the same facts that we laid out
under point 4 above, namely that adelphos has an extended use. BDAG
uses the word "neighbor" to indicate what kind of close associate is in view
in one of the cases. The complete list of cases includes the following: (a)
the close associate may be a fellow Christian ("brother, fellow member," meaning
2a in BDAG); (b) he may be a "compatriot" (meaning 2b); (c) he may be someone
who stands in the relation of "neighbor" (meaning 2c); or (d) he may be a
person "in very high position" (meaning 2d). BDAG is not actually making any
claim about maleness. It is not asserting that adelphos has now lost
all maleness; neither is asserting that it retains a male meaning. It is simply
not addressing the question. It is rather describing how the extended use
differs in reference from the literal use. The evidence given two paragraphs
above shows that, in fact, adelphos retains its male component in singular
uses of the extended meaning.

Why
not translate Luke 17:3 with "your neighbor"? BDAG might appear to endorse
this solution, not of course because the male meaning is lost, but because
"neighbor" indicates that we are dealing with an extended use. Actually, it
is not quite clear whether Luke 17:3 involves the literal or the extended
use of adelphos. Conceivably, in making the statement in Luke 17:3,
Jesus wants us to think of a case involving a literal brother. This one case
then illustrates what our responsibilities are in many other cases. More likely,
Luke 17:3 involves an extended use. The case of a literal brother would certainly
apply, but what we are told is vague: this person is a close associate, whether
a literal brother or a fellow Christian or a compatriot or a neighbor. A case
involving a fellow Christian believer would certainly fit, and might be the
first to come to mind for many readers of Luke 17:3. The difficulty with "your
neighbor" is that it does not suggest the family-like intimacy and family-like
responsibilies that belongs to the connotations of "brother," even in its
extended use. Nor does it suggest so pointedly that a "brother" in the sense
of a Christian associate may be the first and most obvious place in which
to make the application. For these reasons, the TNIV is undoubtedly right
in avoiding "neighbor" and sticking with "brother." But having made this decision,
it cannot justify adding "or sister." That represents a change of meaning
from the Greek.

Weighing
alternatives

We
may illustrate the issue another way by standing back from the TNIV and asking
what other translations did before 1980. All the translations that we have
checked have "brother" (not "brother or sister"). Here they are: the King
James Version (KJV 1611), Revised Version (RV 1881), American Standard Version
(ASV 1901), Moffatt (1922, 1935), Montgomery (1924, 1952), Goodspeed (1931),
Berkeley (1945, 1959, 1969), Revised Standard Version (RSV 1946, 1952, 1979),
Phillips (1958), New English Bible (NEB 1961, 1970), New American Standard
Bible (NASB 1963), New American Bible (NAB 1970), Living Bible (LB 1971),
Translator's New Testament (TNT 1973), New International Version (NIV 1973,
1978, 1984), Good News Bible (Today's English Version; GNB 1976), New King
James Version (NKJV 1979, 1982).

This
list is all the more impressive because it includes translations with a variety
of approaches. The Living Bible is by its own admission a paraphrase, representing
the meaning only loosely. The Good News Bible rests on principles of "dynamic
equivalent translation," whereas some of the others tend more towards word-for-word
equivalence. The Translator's New Testament pays special attention to translation
issues. The Montgomery translation was done by a woman, Helen Barrett Montgomery.
Finally, the NIV is the predecessor on which the TNIV was based, so one must
ask why the TNIV undertook to change it.

Defenders
usually focus on giving arguments why the TNIV is "acceptable." But really,
to justify the TNIV they must do more. Any translation should not only aim
at doing a minimally "acceptable" job of capturing some of the meaning,
but should do a maximal job of capturing as much meaning as it can,
within the limits in which it works. (On types of translation, see Poythress
and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, chap. 4, pp. 57-90.)
Since the meaning of the TNIV is demonstrably different from all these earlier
versions, we must ask, "Is the TNIV demonstrably better than all of
them?" And why should we believe that it is better? What has changed, to justify
this clear break with virtually every translation done before 1980?

Scholarly
knowledge of the Greek language continues to grow. But scholars have been
working with Greek for centuries, and the increments possible at this point
tend to be very small. Has our knowledge of adelphos changed? Not really.

Increased
modern sensitivity to gender issues has led people to reinspect previous knowledge
of adelphos. Maybe at some point we have had a small incremental gain.
But there are also new dangers. The present politically heated atmosphere
about gender, combined with the propensities of sinful human nature, tempts
people to one-sidedness. Certainly on our side there is danger that some people
will take overly rigid positions in reaction to present-day cultural tendencies.
(But note that the Colorado Springs Guidelines <http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/niv/guidelines.html> acknowledge language change
and allow for exceptional cases.) But on the other side people run the danger
of engaging in wishful thinking. How convenient it would be if the Bible offered
no resistance to rewording it in harmony with politically correct modes of
speech. People who wish it were so look for evidence that it is so. If they
find even one exceptional case pertaining to a particular word, they may be
tempted to act as if the exception has become the rule, while the rule becomes
the exception. Then they have an excuse for large-scale alterations in gender.
(See the discussion in Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,
Appendix 2, pp. 321-333.)

In
any case, translators of previous generations, going all the way back to the
KJV, were often very well qualified in their knowledge of Greek (why else
would they be asked to serve as translators?). They knew the basic facts.
They certainly knew that adelphos in the plural can refer to both men
and women (depending on context), because this fact is steadily visible in
the New Testament.

So
the changes are not due to changes in knowledge of Greek. Has the English
language changed since 1980? Ah, yes, feminism has raised serious questions
about supposed "sexism" in English, and various pressures have led to decreasing
use of some expressions, such as decreased use of "men" when the referent
includes both men and women. But has the meaning of "brother" or "sister"
changed? No. "Brother" may be used less often in contemporary speech to describe
a fellow Christian (though it is still common in some African-American churches).
But that does not help at all to explain a change from "brother" to "brother
or sister."

Modern
culture

At
bottom, the issue for Luke 17:3 is not about the meaning of the Greek.
(If the Greek actually meant "brother or sister," as a directly expressed
meaning, earlier translations would have done it this way.) Nor is it about
whether "brother" or "sister" is understandable in English when used in an
extended sense. The TNIV of Luke 17:3 uses "brother or sister," thus admitting
that these words are understandable in the extended sense.

Then
what is the real issue? It is the modern setting since roughly 1980. Since
1980 not only the TNIV but several other translations have gone in a "gender-neutral"
direction. (See Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,
pp. 1-36.)

Some
defenders candidly admit that, at least for some verses, the main issue does
not really concern directly expressed meaning in Greek, but modern cultural
expectations. Grant Osborne says, "... the biblical writers themselves would
most likely [use inclusive language] ... on the principle of becoming 'all
things to all people,' since many in our culture could be confused or offended
by masculine language" ("Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture? No,"
Christianity Today 41:12 [Oct. 27, 1997]: 33-39). Not only Osborne but
others worry that people "could be confused or offended" unless we remove
masculine language. (For a thorough discussion of these issues we must once
again refer to Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,
especially pp. 163-179, 203-212.)

Take
first the issue of confusion. Are people really likely to be confused in Luke
17:3 by reading "your brother" instead of "brother or sister"? The Bible contains
many passages in which it expresses general principles using single cases.
Some of these cases involve individual male examples, while others involve
female examples. It insults readers to say that they cannot make sense of
this. (See Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,
p. 168.) All the translations before 1980 thought that readers could make
sense of it.

What
about offense? It could be offensive to say "brother," rather than "brother
or sister." Why? Because "many in our culture" (Osborne's words) expect speakers
and writers to show appropriate "sensitivity to gender issues" by carefully
sticking to gender-neutral expressions whenever they make general statements.
"Brother or sister" is in line with the way in which many modern people have
learned to express themselves, whereas "brother" is not (in a context like
Luke 17:3).

Such
an argument has some plausibility, and may sound attractive. But let us consider
how far we have come. We are not now talking about the meaning of the Greek.
Nor are we talking about the meaning of the English words "brother" and "sister,"
both of which mean about what they meant thirty years ago. We are talking
about cultural expectations. Shall we "update" the way in which the Bible
expresses things, so that these updated expressions fit in with what the surrounding
culture expects of "sensitive" people?

Shall
we give in to modern culture?

Well,
dear readers, you now have the facts. We invite you to make up your own minds
about what you expect of a Bible translation. Some people undoubtedly will
want this updating, if only so that they will not be embarrassed and apologetic
when they try to explain a Bible verse to their "cultured" friends. But for
our part, we do not approve of it, and we think there are very good reasons
for avoiding any translation that goes this way. Briefly:

It
compromises meaning of the Bible in the original languages. This should
be evident from the discussion above.

Plenty
of things in the Bible are going to "offend" modern people, for all kinds
of reasons. The Bible is innately offensive, because it calls for people
to abandon totally their own way. "Repent and come to God through Christ."
Sinful people do not like that. So early on they might as well face the
fact: the Bible demands to be read on its own terms and not on our pre-set,
prejudiced, sinful modern terms.

The
principle of avoiding offense begins a slide down into more and more compromise.
What do we do when people are offended by calling God "Father"? Or when
they are offended by hell? As Poythress and Grudem say, "Such pressure to
change the text of Scripture will be relentless. It will be applied to every
Bible translation, and it will not be satisfied merely with the kinds of
changes in the NRSV [New Revised Standard Version, which is gender-neutral].
If evangelical translators and publishers give in to the principle of sacrificing
accuracy because certain expressions are thought to be offensive to the
dominant culture, this altering of the text of Scripture will never end.
And then readers will never know at any verse whether what they have is
the Bible or the translator's own ideas." (Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy,
p. 187; see also pp. 169-175)

Ordinary
readers never know just where the compromises have occurred. They are locked
in to whatever judgments the translators have made on their behalf.

Updating
obscures the differences between the customs of our own time and the ancient
ways of thinking, speaking, and acting in the Bible. To do the best job
of applying the Bible involves actually seeing something of the setting
from which the Bible comes, in order better to apply it to our own. Updating
short circuits the process. Paternalistically, the translator decides for
readers beforehand what will and will not "offend" them, and what they do
and do not need to know about original meanings within their original context.

Hebrews
12:7

Next,
consider Hebrews 12:7. We focus on the second half of the verse.

NIV:
For what son is not disciplined by his father?

TNIV:
For what children are not disciplined by their parents?

The
TNIV changes "son" to "children" and "his father" to their parents." There
are also changes in neighboring verses (12:5, 6, 7a) from "son(s)" to "child(ren)."
In verse 8 "sons" in the NIV disappears in the TNIV. We believe there are
problems with respect to "son(s)," but because of the multiple occurrences
the situation is more complex. For the sake of simplicity we concentrate on
only one problem, namely the change from "father" to "parents" in Hebrews
12:7.

Facts
about the key word pater ("father")

First,
what is the Greek like? The Greek text of Hebrews 12:7 has the word pater
in the singular. We can summarize its meaning as follows:

In
the context of an ordinary family, pater in the singular means "father."
("Joseph sent for his father [pater] Jacob and his whole family,"
Acts 7:14 NIV.)

Greek
also has a feminine form meter, meaning "mother." (Mary the mother
[meter] of James and Joses," Matt. 27:56 NIV.)

In
the plural, pater can sometimes designate "fathers" of more than
one family. ("We have all had human fathers [pater] who disciplined
us," Heb 12:9 NIV.) But it can also designate "parents." ("By faith Moses'
parents [pater] hid him for three months after he was born," Heb.
11:23 NIV.)

In
addition to this basic meaning, pater can be used more broadly in
a number of ways. It can designate forefathers who are more than one generation
back. For example, in Acts 7:11 Stephen, describing the time of Jacob and
his sons, says, "Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great
suffering, and our fathers [pater] could not find food" (NIV). It
can be used metaphorically to describe a person who has a father-like relation
to a younger person, either an older fellow Christian or an older person
to whom one is expressing respect. ("I write to you, fathers [pater],
because you have known him who is from the beginning," 1 John 2:13 NIV.)
It is used to describe God as the Father of the Son and as spiritual Father
to Christians (John 3:35; Rom. 8:15; and many other passages).

Now
what about Hebrews 12:7? The larger passage in Hebrews 12:5-11 compares God's
discipline toward Christians with a father's discipline of his son. God is
specifically called "Father" [pater] in Hebrews 12:9: "How much more
should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" (NIV). Hebrews
12:7 uses the two halves of the verse to make the comparison. In the first
half the subject is God's discipline: "Endure hardship as discipline; God
is treating you as sons" (NIV). The second half is clearly about a human father:
"For what son is not disciplined by his father?" The word for "father" is
pater in the singular. As summarized in statement (1) above, pater
in the singular means "father." There is no ambiguity. (So that readers can
verify this for themselves, we have included online visual evidence from Greek lexicons.)

Confused
defenses

This
case is so clear-cut that some defenders of the TNIV may choose simply to
say nothing about it, but concentrate wholly on the issues involving the changes
from "son(s)" to "child(ren)" (which, of course, is a different issue). But
other defenders undertake to say something. They may attempt to confuse the
reader about the difference between the singular and plural forms of pater.
They impose the meaning "parent" on the singular form in Hebrews 12:7, even
though this meaning is otherwise unknown for the singular.

Next,
they may appeal to the fact that the plural of pater designates "parents"
in a nearby passage, in Heb. 11:23 ("By faith Moses' parents [pater]
hid him for three months after he was born," NIV). They may try to pull in
this verse as an alleged influence on Hebrews 12:7. "Look," someone says,
"the occurrence of pater in Hebrews 11:23 prepares the way to use the
same word in the same way in Hebrews 12."

Yes,
Hebrews 11:23 is less than one chapter away, a little more than 20 verses
from 12:7. But even 20 verses is like a mile. Hebrews 11:23 is irrelevant
to 12:7, because the immediate preceding context of verses 12:5-7 talks about
God's fatherly discipline. As we arrive in verses 5-7 God has not yet been
explicitly called "Father" (that comes in verse 9). But verses 5 and 6
talk about God disciplining people as sons, obviously indicating that
God is the Father in relation to them. (Remember that Christian readers of
Hebrews already know that God is their Father.) The thought of God's fatherly
discipline is firmly in people's minds. Hebrews 12:7 then introduces the word
pater in the singular right after referring to God's discipline. The singular
pater obviously has its ordinary meaning "father," and that meaning is
reinforced rather than undermined by the immediate context (as opposed
to a context 20 verses back).

After
the word pater appears in the singular in verse 7, it appears in the
plural in verse 9a: "Moreover, we have all had human fathers [pater]
who disciplined us ..." (NIV). Defenders may argue that since the plural occurs
here , it may mean "parents." But the meaning "father" is already established
by verse 7, before we come to verse 9. The "we all" in verse 9 is clearly
extending the principle of verse 7 to a multitude of people, who necessarily
have a multitude of fathers. In verse 9a the word pater really must
be plural in order to fit its context. But the context is still that of fathers,
not of "parents" (that is, fathers and mothers equally in focus). And even
if the word did mean "parents" here (which it does not), that meaning certainly
cannot be extended from the plural form of pater back to the singular
form of pater that occurs in verse 7.

Are
defenders really claiming that "parent" is more accurate than "father" as
a literal representation of the expressed meaning of the original Greek in
verse 7? If so, we suggest that they give it up. In the long run, it only
makes them look ridiculous, and undermines confidence in their scholarly abilities.

As
with our discussion of Luke 17:3, look at the evidence of translations before
1980. In Hebrews 12:7 "father" appears in KJV, RV, ASV, Moffatt, Montgomery,
Goodspeed, Berkeley, RSV, Phillips, NEB, NASB, NAB, LB, TNT, NIV, GNB (1976),
NKJV. None has "parent" or "parents." Why not? Because they did not think
it was as accurate. And why do things change after 1980?

Modern
culture

So
what is the real issue? The expressed meaning of the Greek is clear: "father."
The real issue is how this sounds to the sensibilities of modern culture after
1980. People worry about causing offense. We may repeat almost verbatim what
we earlier said with respect to "brother" in Luke 17:3. It could be offensive
to say "father," rather than "parent." Why? Because "many in our culture"
(Osborne's words) expect speakers and writers to show appropriate "sensitivity
to gender issues" by carefully sticking to gender-neutral expressions whenever
they make general statements. "Parent" is in line with the way in which many
modern people have learned to express themselves, whereas "father" is not
(in a context like Heb. 12:7).

Our
reply is the same as it was earlier for Luke 17:3. The policy of avoiding
"offense" compromises meaning and goes down a slippery slope towards eliminating
all kinds of offensive things in the Bible in order to appease the "sensibilities"
of modern culture, which (let's face it) really does not like many of the
things that the Bible says.

Changing
the subject

Finally,
the defenders may try to change the subject to a general discussion about
child-rearing. Is it not true that mothers as well as fathers discipline their
children? In modern cases with single-parent families, will not mothers sometimes
have all the responsibility for family discipline? Is not the discipline
that mothers give analogous to the discipline that God gives? Surely, yes.
But note the following:

The
context in Hebrews 12:7 does not focus on instructing people on how to discipline
their children. It does not offer us generalities about child-rearing in
order primarily to furnish directives to help fathers' and mothers' tasks
in parenting. Nor does it address cases of single-parent families, though
these did occur in the ancient world when (say) a father died in a battle.
Rather, it illustrates, through human example, something about the meaning
of God's discipline. Generalities to the effect that both parents ought
to and often do discipline their children are not relevant. Keep the focus
where it belongs. Ask the crucial question:"As the starting point for its
comparison, does this verse talk about a human father? Or a generic
human parent?" We need the meaning of this specific verse, not mere generalities.

By
suggesting that it does not make a difference whether we think of a father
or a mother, this defense comes dangerously close to suggesting that a father's
and a mother's discipline are identical in every respect, rather than merely
analogous. But such cannot be proved, nor do we think it is so. It is certainly
not the prerogative of Bible translators to draw broad conclusions on such
subjects, and then inject the conclusions into the Bible without warning.

This
argument seems also to come close to suggesting that it does not matter
whether we call God "Father" or "Mother." At a practical level, much of
our experience of the meaning of God's Fatherhood involves the expressions
of his intimacy and love—and discipline is one aspect of his love. We can
imagine someone arguing as follows:

"Fathers
and mothers both give love, intimacy, and discipline. The discipline
is identical in all respects that matter. Therefore, maybe the love
and the intimacy of the two parents are identical in all respects that
matter. If we can substitute 'parent' for the singular of 'father' here
in Hebrews 12:7, then maybe we can do it also in Hebrew 12:9, where
God is our spiritual 'Father' (or should it be 'Parent'?). God does
not literally belong to the biological male sex, and so we can simply
delete maleness in this case. Otherwise, we risk confusion, in that
people may think that God is biologically male."

Dangers

The
TNIV does not go this far, but once the logic is in place, what is to prevent
it? Some radical feminists are in fact already arguing in this direction.
For our part, we think that to go down this route means trying to be wiser
than God. God revealed in the Scripture that he is the Father of the Son,
the Father of Jesus Christ. He then becomes our Father because we are united
to Christ. If we do not accept the Scriptural manner of expression as the
final word about God, we are proposing to follow our own ideas about God,
and we are manufacturing ourselves an idol. We will know neither the Father
nor the Son, and we will remain in darkness. "No one knows the Son except
the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom
the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matt. 11:27 ESV). In this area the stakes
get very high.

When
people say, "Don't fuss about it," they reveal naivete.

1 Corinthians
14:28

Finally,
consider 1 Corinthians 14:28. Here is how it goes:

NIV:
If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and
speak to himself and God.

TNIV:
If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and
speak to God when alone.

The
TNIV changes "to himself" (the NIV) to "when alone."

Analysis

What
is in the Greek original? The Greek has two parallel expressions in the dative
case, namely "to himself" (eauto, a form of eautou) and "to
God" (to theo). Both expressions are linked to the verb "speak" (laleito).
Both indicate who is spoken to. "Speak to himself and God" is thus a reasonable
translation. "When alone" changes the meaning. The Greek (and the NIV) specifies
the addressee of the utterance, but the TNIV specifies the circumstances
of the utterance. These are different meanings.

Where
then did the TNIV get the expression "when alone"? One cannot be sure. But
a possible explanation is close at hand. The Apostle Paul has just said that
"the speaker [the one who is going to speak in tongues] should keep quiet
in the church." In the larger context, Paul indicates that the church meeting
should carry on in such a way that everyone is edified (see 1 Cor. 14:2-5,
12-13, 23, 26, etc.). If there is no interpreter, the rest who are present
in the meeting will not understand. So, one might infer, it is better in that
case for the speaker to proceed in another way, perhaps by waiting for another
time and circumstance.

The
TNIV has jumped to the conclusion that the circumstance in view must be
when one is alone. But that is not necessarily so. What if the individual
mumbles in tongues quietly to himself while in church? Is that O.K.? Someone
might look at the expression "keep quiet in the church," and might press it
into an absolute rule: keep absolutely, deathly quiet. Maybe. But is that
realistic? From time to time will not some people find themselves quietly
weeping or groaning, but not absolutely silent? And is absolute silence Paul's
purpose? Surely the purpose is to keep the overall church meeting in order.
Disruption of the meeting, not absolute silence, is the issue.

There
is also another possibility. In some cultures where almost all praying is
out loud, a small number of people who have come together may for a time pray
out loud simultaneously, each offering his or her own prayer to God.
Similarly, one can envision a number of people praying out loud in tongues
simultaneously. This practice does not disrupt the church meeting, because
the people are not in a church meeting in the ordinary sense, and they are
certainly not trying to address the church meeting (unlike the case
in 1 Corinthians 14). They are just praying, and are doing it in the same
room.

Is
the Apostle Paul forbidding such practices of simultaneous prayer? The issue
in 1 Corinthians 14 is not what may happen in various small groups, but what
happens "in the church" (14:28; see verse 23), which suggests a larger gathering
where unbelievers might sometimes enter (14:23-25). Paul forbids speaking
to the church, because that would disrupt the meeting or at least not
be edifying. He focuses on the addressee. He does not really say anything
one way or the other about how a person might "speak to himself" in various
circumstances, but puts forth a necessary restriction about addressing the
church. Addressing the church must be edifying, and it is not when tongues
are not interpreted.

Thus,
the TNIV has drawn a conclusion about being alone that the text does
not clearly warrant. Instead, it should have let people see what the text
actually asserts, including its focus on the addressee. Then each reader
would remain free to draw whatever conclusions may be appropriate as to the
circumstances in which one might speak in tongues.

But
suppose for the sake of the argument we grant what is not true, namely that,
without an interpreter, speaking in tongues is to be done only "when alone."
The TNIV has still changed the meaning. It makes a direct assertion
about the circumstances, whereas the original makes an assertion about
the addressee and leaves the reader to infer what circumstances
are appropriate.

Defenders'
explanation

As
of June 5, 2002, the official TNIV website contained the following "explanation"
of 1 Corinthians 14:28:

"When
alone" translates the Greek word eautou, a reflexive pronoun used
to indicate something done "to oneself" or "by oneself," according to BDAG,
the standard lexicon for New Testament Greek. Paul did not permit a person
to speak in a tongue in the church itself unless there was someone who could
interpret. The person was to wait until he or she was outside the church--i.e.,
when they were alone. The fact that eautou is singular suggests that
the command is to speak "to oneself," not to "themselves"--indicating that
"when alone" is an appropriate translation.

Bear
with me as we analyze this explanation.

The
first paragraph simply asserts that the TNIV is accurate. We have already
given evidence that this is not so. Let us then look at the second paragraph,
in order to see whether evidence can be offered on the other side.

Confusion
about the lexicon

Take
the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"When
alone" translates the Greek word eautou, a reflexive pronoun
used to indicate something done "to oneself" or "by oneself," according to
BDAG, the standard lexicon for New Testament Greek.

Most
people are likely to accept this sentence at face value. It sounds so reasonable.
But if we actually look up eautou in BDAG (the third English edition
of Bauer's Greek lexicon), the initial impression completely changes. BDAG's
entry under eautou has three main subdivisions, of which only the first
concerns us. The first main subdivision, marked 1, has at its beginning the
following general summary: "indicator of identity w. [with] the pers. [person]
speaking or acting, self." That is, eautou in Greek indicates
that the person so designated is identical with the person who is doing the
speaking or acting, that is, typically the person who is referred to in the
subject of the verb. It is like our English "oneself." Quite properly, this
general summary does not say "to oneself" or "by oneself";
it does not add extra prepositions like "to" or "by." Why not? Because these
are not the meaning of eautou in and of itself. Rather, they are the
meanings of various compound expressions. For example, subdivision 1.a.alpha
in BDAG indicates that the Greek phrase af' eautou (literally "from
[af'] oneself [eautou]") can mean "of one's own accord," or
"on one's own authority," or "by itself" (in the sense of supplying its own
means of doing something). The phrase en eauto can mean "to or in oneself"
(1.a.gamma). The phrase kath' eauton can mean "by oneself," in the
sense of a distinct location (1.a.zeta). (The TNIV explanation probably gets
the phrase "by oneself" from BDAG meaning 1.a.zeta, but "by
oneself" in 1.a/zeta is the meaning of the whole phrase kath' eauton,
which is not what occurs in 1 cor. 14:28!) The Greek phrase peri eautou
can mean "for himself" or "about himself" (1.a.theta). And so on.

The
lexicon supplies a considerable quantity of carefully classified uses. The
total amount comes to one whole column and two half columns, making up the
equivalent of one whole page of tightly packed information. Out of this total
the TNIV "explanation" picks only two pieces, "to oneself" and "by oneself."
It totally ignores the context within the lexicon. The context shows that
these two meanings "to oneself" and "by oneself" pertain to contexts and constructions
quite different from what we have in 1 Corinthians 14:28. This suggests that
the writer of the TNIV defense did not even know how to use a lexicon!

But
things are worse than this. Out of the total possibilities the TNIV "explanation"
has picked two and only two possible meanings, "to oneself" and "by oneself."
Where are the other possibilities? Why these two alone? The reader who does
not actually check BDAG will probably assume that these two correspond to
two possible meanings in 1 Corinthians 14:28. One meaning would be
"to oneself" indicating the addressee, which would explain why the NIV translates
"to himself." The other meaning would be "by oneself" indicating the circumstance,
that is, "when one is by oneself," "when one is alone." It would therefore
justify the translation "when alone." The "explanation" produces in the mind
of a naïve reader absolutely bogus evidence in favor of translating the meaning
of eautou in 1 Corinthians 14:28 as "when alone." This production of
bogus evidence is ominous. It still leaves open the possibility that the writer
does not know how to use a lexicon. Let us hope that this is the correct inference.
The other alternative is that the writer did know how to use a lexicon,
and deliberately concealed and distorted evidence in the way in which he reported
things, in order falsely to suggest that BDAG supports the meaning "by oneself"
in 1 Corinthians 14:28.

So
what is actually going on in 1 Corinthians 14:28? The construction involves
eautou in the dative case (the exact form is eauto). In a context
like this, one has to consider the possible functions of the dative case.
This particular use is a dative of indirect object, to indicate the addressee.
eautou indicates the addressee, the one spoken to. The parallel phrase
"to God," also indicating an addressee, removes any possible ambiguity. The
appropriate translation is "speak to himself," where, in rough terms, "to"
corresponds to the force of the dative and "himself" to the force of the Greek
reflexive pronoun eautou. The NIV translated it correctly, and in fact
there is no serious question about this meaning for anyone who has competence
in Greek. The first sentence in the TNIV "explanation" simply throws up
smoke and obscures the truth.

Circumstances or addressees?

Let
us now go on to the other parts of the explanation.

The
second sentence says, "Paul did not permit a person to speak in a tongue in
the church itself unless there was someone who could interpret." This is true,
and expresses the implications of other parts of 1 Corinthians 14:28.

The
third sentence says, "The person was to wait until he or she was outside the
church—i.e., when they were alone." The part beginning with "i.e." contains
a fallacious inference, as we have seen. The alternative of each person praying
aloud in a small group still remains. And the possibility of a person mumbling
softly to himself while still in the church gathering remains.

The
fourth sentence says, "The fact that eautou is singular suggests that
the command is to speak 'to oneself,' not to 'themselves'--indicating that
'when alone' is an appropriate translation."

How
do we evaluate this last claim? First note that by saying "speak 'to oneself,'"
the writer has now conceded that the actual literal force of the construction
in this context is "to oneself," not "by oneself," as was suggested in his
first sentence.

But
now the writer may be trying to appeal to the singular form to mount an argument
against people simultaneously praying out loud when several are together.
Each must literally be alone. But this does not follow. Using the plural here
instead of the singular would result in an ambiguity, in that it would suggest
that people might be speaking to one another. The singular unambiguously
expresses that each is to speak to himself (and to God), not to anyone else.
But this by itself does not decide for us whether a person might mumble softly
to himself (one addressee) while still being in church. Nor does it decide
for us whether several people might each speak to himself (one addressee)
when they were together in private. Any further inference merely from the
fact that we have a singular form is unwarranted.

Now
look at the final expression, which says, "indicating that 'when alone' is
an appropriate translation." Before, we were dealing with possible inferences
about the circumstances for speaking in tongues. Now, the writer slides from
making inferences about the circumstances to putting those inferences directly
back into the translation. This slide confuses exegesis with translation.
In exegesis we do draw a large number of inferences about the text's implications.
In translation we present something close to the direct meaning of the original,
in order that readers may draw the inferences. Of course, translators must
do exegesis in order to discern the meaning. But there is a difference between
putting the original meaning into another language and putting in all the
inferences that are included as aspects of the entire process of exegesis.

The
writer also slides over one more issue with the word "appropriate." What we
should ask is whether the translation is the most accurate that it
can be, not whether it simply represents in some vague way the general direction
or the main point of the passage. The explanation needs to show why "when
alone" is actually superior to the usual translation "to himself."
Of course it does not do that, nor can it.

Other
translations

Consider
also another question. What do translations do before 1980? "To himself" appears
in KJV, RV, ASV, Goodspeed, Berkeley, RSV, Phillips, NEB, NASB, NAB, TNT,
NIV, GNB (1976), NKJV. Moffatt has changed "speak" to "address," and so has
"address himself," which amounts to the same thing. Montgomery and LB (Living
Bible) have "to themselves." This change is probably for the sake of smoothness
in English. Here is how Montgomery translates verses 27 and 28 together:

14:27
If anyone speaks in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by
three, and that in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no
one to interpret, let them keep silence in the church, and speak to
themselves and to God.

Verse
27 talks about "two or ... three," making the transition to a singular speaker
in verse 28 somewhat abrupt (though the Greek does shift to singular). We
can thus understand why a translator might try to use "them" and "themselves"
to smooth out the English. But "themselves" is not in fact as good, because
it leaves ambiguous whether they are speaking to one another or each to himself.

Within
this list, no translation has "when alone" or anything like it.

Will
the TNIV then argue that all these translations are inferior, because
it alone has translated the most accurately?! There is a difference in meaning
here, so we cannot say that both translations are equally accurate in representing
the exact meaning of the Greek.

The
real issue: eliminating generic "he"

Everyone
who has been around and who has listened to the controversy for awhile knows
exactly why "when alone" came in. It came in because TNIV and other gender-neutral
translations have decided that they will not use generic "he." Some explanation
may help. "Generic 'he'" refers to a masculine singular pronoun ("he, him,
his, himself") used in the context of a general ["generic"] statement applying
to both men and women. In 1 Cor. 14:28, the expression "the speaker" is generic,
implying that we should include both male and female speakers. The subsequent
expression "to himself" refers back to "the speaker," and is therefore generic.
(For a full discussion, see Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible
Controversy, pp. 111ff.) Gender-neutral translations, including the TNIV,
systematically eliminate this use of generic "he."

"Himself"
in 1 Corinthians 14:28 had to disappear, whatever the effects on meaning.
In its preface, entitled "A Word to the Reader," TNIV virtually admits it:
"Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is ... the elimination of
most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns" (p. vii).
The word "pronouns" indicates that generic "he" has been eliminated.

Naturally,
TNIV tried to make the effects as small as possible. But in this case one
cannot completely conceal the effects. So an "explanation" tries to make the
best of a bad situation.

Interestingly, the "explanation" does
not mention the one real reason for the change. Since 1980 no one has
received any more insight into the Greek language, or insight into Paul's
thinking, or insight into the situation at Corinth, such as would justify
a change. No one gives any reason (because they cannot) why every translation
before 1980 is less than fully accurate. The one real reason, totally
unmentioned, is a unilateral decision to eliminate "himself," and to change
the passage around in whatever way is necessary once that part of the English
language is sacrificed.

The
real issue is about English, not Greek. And it is not about the meaning of
"himself" at a merely basic level. It is about what people expect and feel
about language as a reflection of cultural assumptions, and about sensitivity,
offense, and so on.

Evaluation

So
now, dear readers, we come for the third time to the point where we make a
decision. You have the facts. What do you think? Should a modern translation
eliminate generic "he" and make whatever changes are necessary? This question
is in one way the most important, because it affects not just one verse but
many. The New Testament alone contains hundreds of verses where pre-1980 translations
use generic "he." If we extend our inspection to include the Old Testament,
the number mounts into the thousands. All these verses must have their wording
changed, whatever the consequences to meaning. As in the other cases we have
looked at, we expect that some people will wish to have it that way. It produces
less "offense." But for ourselves, we reject it. Poythress and Grudem's book,
Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, devotes no less than five complete chapters
to the question (chaps. 7-11; also appendices 3 and 6), because it is so important.
And though opponents have blown smoke and produced confusion, no one has refuted
the book. To those concerned, we would recommend reading these chapters, or,
best of all, the whole book. But we can summarize the main points with respect
to generic "he" as follows:

In
spite of pressures to the contrary, generic "he" remains in fairly wide use
in English, both in the secular press and even in pro-feminist literature
(in the latter case, in the form of "oscillating use," which shifts back and
forth between "she" and "he").

Systematically
eliminating generic "he" compromises meaning of the Bible in the original
languages. This should be evident from the analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:28.

Modern
resistance to generic "he" is not isolated, but part of a larger pattern of
resistance to any kind of imbalance in frequency between male and female cases.
The Bible will inevitably offend people with this mind-set, and it will offend
them in many other areas as well.

The
principle of avoiding offense begins a slide down into more and more compromise.
What do we do when people are offended by calling God "Father"? Or when they
are offended by hell?

Ordinary
readers never know just where the compromises have occurred. They are locked
in to whatever judgments the translators have made on their behalf.

Concluding
observations about the translation committee for the TNIV

Finally,
let us remember who did the actual translation work to produce the TNIV. The
responsibility belonged to the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), sponsored
by the International Bible Society. Over the years, the CBT has, of course,
gradually had some changes in personnel. But many of its members belonged
to the Committee when they produced the NIVI (New International Version
Inclusive Language Edition) in 1996. And the TNIV definitely continues
the main policies of the NIVI with respect to gender. There is considerable
continuity here.

Now
in 1995 the CBT wrote the "Preface to Inclusive Language NIV" for the NIVI.
They said,

At
the same time, it was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the
patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive
language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit.
("Preface," p. vii)

The
International Bible Society subsequently regretted those words, but there
they are. The words suggest that, for the Committee, one factor driving the
changes in gender was not merely the question of linguistic meaning in the
narrow sense, but cultural appropriateness. They undertook "to mute the patriarchalism
of the culture of the biblical writers." (For further discussion of
this amazing statement, see Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible
Controversy, pp. 152-159.) More precisely, this meant bringing the manner
of expression in the Bible into conformity with modern "gender sensitivity,"
which demands that people suppress any element of maleness in general ("generic")
statements. This pattern is exactly what we have seen in all three verses,
Luke 17:3, Hebrews 12:7, and 1 Corinthians 14:28. (For further discussion,
see Vern S. Poythress, "Gender in Bible Translation: How Fallacies Distort
Understanding of the New Testament Gender Passages,"Journal
for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
3/4 (winter, 1998) 1, 5-7, 12.

The
CBT says it preserved "the message of the Spirit." That may sound nice. But
think what are the implications.

If
the CBT preserves everything that every verse means (which would be the ideal),
nothing is being "muted." They admit something is "muted." Moreover, the "muting"
is not something inevitable, something that they cannot help because of the
technical linguistic limitations that come with translating from one language
to another. The muting is "appropriate." They decided to do it when they knew
that other translations into English did not. This muting distinguishes the
NIVI and the TNIV from translations before 1980 (and some more recent translations),
which in their gender language make no attempt to engage in such muting.

Something
is being muted, but the CBT says that "this could be done without compromising
the message of the Spirit." What is muted is not "the message of the Spirit."
Only what is left after muting is "the message of the Spirit," which
supposedly is still uncompromised. But this implies that the "message of the
Spirit" is something other than and less than the total meaning of every passage.
Who decides what is this "message of the Spirit," which is now within the
Bible but not identical with the total meaning of the Bible? The CBT decides.

But
they have no right to do that! The job of translators is to give us the full,
unvarished and unaltered meaning, as best they can, with nothing "muted."
It is then up to readers to discern the "message of the Spirit." This is certainly
so if readers think as we do that the whole Bible with all its meanings is
the message of the Spirit. Leave nothing out! But it is also so even for non-Christians
or radical-feminists or liberal theological readers who think that only some
part or aspect or core might be identified with that message. Let readers
decide, without patronizing them.

Does
the CBT really mean what it says? Perhaps at the time they were just being
careless or thoughtless in their manner of expression. (But then might similar
carelessness or thoughtlessness enter into their manner of expression when
they engage in translating biblical verses?) Perhaps they were just muddled
in their thinking. (But might similar muddling occur when they engage in translation?)
Perhaps they did not have sufficient command of the English language. (But
might similar lack of command influence their Bible translation?) In charity
one would like to hope for the best. But if the problem is carelessness or
muddle-headedness, it is odd that the statement in question exactly matches
and effectively explains the precise kinds of change that we observe. Instead
of being muddle-headed, the CBT statement may in fact represent a temporary
island of clear vision, within a sea of fog and muddle. For once, in a moment
of clarity, it expresses the real significance of the most regrettable meaning
changes. The CBT perhaps remains in a muddle most of the time because it cannot
reconcile itself to the truth that this is what the TNIV is really doing.